EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 1218
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
abmhm
21 Posts
On January 11 2019 07:36 Plansix wrote: Why critique feminism in the context of a discussion about immigration? I mentioned this before. Feminism contributed to lower birthrates. The pension system made up by third-way neoliberalism REQUIRES that MORE children are born than there are parents (who retire as grandparents) - as it is dependent on endless unsustainable growth. Without sufficient children (e.g. young people working) the system would collapse in on itself. So when people started having too few children (workers) to sustain that system, the Western world had to start importing people to maintain it. Again, part of the problem. Not the full scope of it. Another part has to do with education levels in the West, which is part of why you have outsourcing, and part of why Europe needed low-education immigrants in the 70s, as opposed to the brain drain immigration that is happening nowadays. The world is incredibly complex and it is exceedingly frustrating that you keep claiming I am arguing in "bad faith" because I don't lay out the whole of society in every post I make. I'm already typing far too much for you read anything I say accurately. On January 11 2019 07:29 Plansix wrote: One might assume that was the intent of the hyperbolic line of reasoning to begin with. To attack something and silicate a response, but then turn around and claim that the argument was completely reasonable and was not attack when called on it. The very foundation of a bad faith argument. You're an asshole and deliberately misinterpreting what I am saying to cast me as one thing or another that I am not. You are also doing what you claim I am doing, and stating hyperbolically that I am "attacking feminism" when I am merely trying to reconcile/understand/lay bare the grievances from the people who appear so vehemently opposed to it in their political rhetoric. User was banned for this post. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
The far-right anti-feminist theory can re-utilized into an argument to increase wages for working-class families so they can exist & afford to have children with just 40-50 hours of wage labor between the two parents, rather than the 80-100 hours that it demands today from two participants in the work force. Which is how feminism contributed to the crushing birthrates and subsequently requires immigration to maintain the unsustainable status quo of pension funds and the bankers that exploit those funds. Which is all part of the scheme that leads to the increased inequality we see today. Who actually stays at home to take care of the kids is irrelevant. The problem with this is that you don't commit to anything. You have adopted the role of someone who is arguing on behalf on far-right theories, but won't admit you subscribe to them yourself. It is impossible to tell what you believe, because you have assumed this mercurial stance where you advocate for far-right theories, but can always disavow them when someone makes a substantive argument against them. But that is the problem. Because when I questioned the theory that feminism crushed birther rates, you claimed that isn't what you meant. That there were a number of factors, both economic and cultural. But the argument, per your initial post, was never yours to begin with. Or so you claim. Because again, you fail to commit to anything. Intentionally. This is why people have been treating your arguments the way that they have. Because many people here are used to this sort of far right argument style where the poster tries to control the discussion from leaping from topic to topic, accusing people of believing things they never said. It is why you keep coming back to the "SJW" comment, because you know that was the moment folks recognized exactly what type of argument style they were dealing with. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On January 11 2019 07:51 abmhm wrote: I mentioned this before. Feminism contributed to lower birthrates. The pension system made up by third-way neoliberalism REQUIRES that MORE children are born than there are parents (who retire as grandparents) - as it is dependent on endless unsustainable growth. Otherwise the system would collapse in on itself. So when people started having too few children to sustain that system, the Western world had to start importing people to maintain it. That's some fine piece of 18th century economics. Luckily we have overcome Malthusian theory, even though it is still pathetically present with the conservatives. | ||
|
abmhm
21 Posts
On January 11 2019 08:06 Plansix wrote: But that isn't want you said. Your initial argument, explainer of the far right's argument, is devoid of that nuance: The problem with this is that you don't commit to anything. You have adopted the role of someone who is arguing on behalf on far-right theories, but won't admit you subscribe to them yourself. It is impossible to tell what you believe, because you have assumed this mercurial stance where you advocate for far-right theories, but can always disavow them when someone makes a substantive argument against them. But that is the problem. Because when I questioned the theory that feminism crushed birther rates, you claimed that isn't what you meant. That there were a number of factors, both economic and cultural. But the argument, per your initial post, was never yours to begin with. Or so you claim. Because again, you fail to commit to anything. Intentionally. This is why people have been treating your arguments the way that they have. Because many people here are used to this sort of far right argument style where the poster tries to control the discussion from leaping from topic to topic, accusing people of believing things they never said. It is why you keep coming back to the "SJW" comment, because you know that was the moment folks recognized exactly what type of argument style they were dealing with. How is "Which is how feminism contributed to the crushing birthrates and subsequently requires immigration to maintain the unsustainable status quo of pension funds and the bankers that exploit those funds. Which is all part of the scheme that leads to the increased inequality we see today" not the same as what I explained to you just now again? And are all of your "beliefs" in life inherit to your internal thought processes alone or do you read/hear/see things and try to understand them and place them in your perception of the world? I don't know why would expect me to fall in line with a specific set of beliefs according to some political group. That is your personal narrow-mindedness. I mention at the start of that paragraph "the far-right anti-feminist theory" -- meaning it is the far-right theory of anti-feminism. It is not something that I made up, it is not of my own creation, it is the theory associated with that particular political group. I am then saying we can use that far-right anti-feminism theory and utilize it to produce an economic/political/societal policy or whatever that enables the way of life that they seek whilst not infringing on the rights or freedoms of other people (except perhaps billionaires who will have to redistribute their hoards of wealth). I think if you were to apply that which I describe about wages and hours, then you can achieve that. And as I said, I NEVER even suggested it was the sole factor. It was a contribution. But you seem unwilling to accept that as the reality. Contributed means it was a factor. It does not mean the sole cause. I said contributed from the start, not just AFTER you asked for clarification. There is nothing dishonest about what I'm saying. Misinformed, as Big J condescendingly seems to suggest, perhaps (although he's probably just making a shitton of ignorant assumptions about me). But I am not "dishonest." You are merely incapable of interpreting the full meaning of the sentences that I construct. | ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10142 Posts
On January 11 2019 08:06 Plansix wrote: But that isn't want you said. Your initial argument, explainer of the far right's argument, is devoid of that nuance: The problem with this is that you don't commit to anything. You have adopted the role of someone who is arguing on behalf on far-right theories, but won't admit you subscribe to them yourself. It is impossible to tell what you believe, because you have assumed this mercurial stance where you advocate for far-right theories, but can always disavow them when someone makes a substantive argument against them. But that is the problem. Because when I questioned the theory that feminism crushed birther rates, you claimed that isn't what you meant. That there were a number of factors, both economic and cultural. But the argument, per your initial post, was never yours to begin with. Or so you claim. Because again, you fail to commit to anything. Intentionally. This is why people have been treating your arguments the way that they have. Because many people here are used to this sort of far right argument style where the poster tries to control the discussion from leaping from topic to topic, accusing people of believing things they never said. It is why you keep coming back to the "SJW" comment, because you know that was the moment folks recognized exactly what type of argument style they were dealing with. Imo his point is to utilize the far right points to make that the wage labour between the two parents goes back to what it was in the past, so people can spend the time to actually have children and being able to afford it, not to get the women back to the kitchen. I don't know how to say it in english, but it is pretty much the argument about work and being able to have the time with your kids that the left has already. I mean,when i read his very first post instead of jumping to the SJW usage I perfectly nailed where he stands for politically speaking without the need to spell it out for me, and from there I think I understand what he talks about feminism. He is not against feminism, he is against the increased cost of living to everyone due to double worker households, and one of the reasons it gained traction to the current capitalist system is that it was economically advantageous. Or maybe i am wrong and i understood everything wrong. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On January 11 2019 09:07 Godwrath wrote: Imo his point is to utilize the far right points to make that the wage labour between the two parents goes back to what it was in the past, so people can spend the time to actually have children and being able to afford it, not to get the women back to the kitchen. I don't know how to say it in english, but it is pretty much the argument about work and being able to have the time with your kids that the left has already. I mean,when i read his very first post instead of jumping to the SJW usage I perfectly nailed where he stands for politically speaking without the need to spell it out for me, and from there I think I understand what he talks about feminism. He is not against feminism, he is against the increased cost of living to everyone due to double worker households, and one of the reasons it gained traction to the current capitalist system is that it was economically advantageous. Or maybe i am wrong and i understood everything wrong. That same post he claims occupy Wall Street was taken over by paid leftists, tapping into the mythical profession of paid prosestors that dominate many discussions. It is really tough to figure out what is real and what is hyperbolic commentary. | ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10142 Posts
On January 11 2019 09:30 Plansix wrote: And yet that quote isn't against feminism itself. I will let him elaborate to see if I am getting it wrong, but as I read it is more conspiracy theory about bankers using a group that generates polemic views to derail the narrative and make the movement less palatable to the general public.That same post he claims occupy Wall Street was taken over by paid leftists, tapping into the mythical profession of paid prosestors that dominate many discussions. It is really tough to figure out what is real and what is hyperbolic commentary. | ||
|
abmhm
21 Posts
On January 11 2019 09:51 Godwrath wrote: And yet that quote isn't against feminism itself. I will let him elaborate to see if I am getting it wrong, but as I read it is more conspiracy theory about bankers using a group that generates polemic views to derail the narrative and make the movement less palatable to the general public. Not just "bankers financing activists" but also media in the exact same way as that New Republica article about the Gilet Jaunes was playing into divide and conquer (where everybody pretty much agreed that was happening). I was definitely being hyperbolic or facetious in that particular line. I mean, conspiracies... I am sure there is some deliberate coordination between various people, but a lot of it just people picking up already popular narratives and going with them. But that's the thing, how do narratives become popular? They absolutely need financial backing to become popular. You can write a great movie script or book but it won't be a popular story without a publisher of some sort. Not so much a conspiracy because they usually label the books and give out their names on TV and in articles while they sell their narratives. But that's why it's the "fake news media" on the left as well. On January 11 2019 09:07 Godwrath wrote: Imo his point is to utilize the far right points to make that the wage labour between the two parents goes back to what it was in the past, so people can spend the time to actually have children and being able to afford it, not to get the women back to the kitchen. I don't know how to say it in english, but it is pretty much the argument about work and being able to have the time with your kids that the left has already. The left has it in their platform. The right has it. And yet there's a looot of working-class people at child-rearing age who are absolutely struggling and tethering on the edge, barely capable of keeping their heads above water. Unless you have connections or work in the appropriate sectors (finance, medicine, information, some others), you don't get the financial stability you need for a happy life. It's like I said in my first post: Give them proper jobs and wages rather than this neoliberal nonsense of employment agencies with uncertain contracts and unstable hours where you have to a fight a bureaucracy of two corporations just to get paid overtime. And what those nurses at the Gilets Jaunes pointed out more elegantly: "“We’re pacifists and of course we’re afraid there might be violence, but we have come anyway, otherwise we will gain nothing in life. We’re fighting against precarity,” Portejoie said." I had to look up the definition, and damn that captures it so well: Precarity is a precarious existence, lacking in predictability, job security, material or psychological welfare. The social class defined by this condition has been termed the precariat. I mean,when i read his very first post instead of jumping to the SJW usage I perfectly nailed where he stands for politically speaking without the need to spell it out for me, and from there I think I understand what he talks about feminism. He is not against feminism, he is against the increased cost of living to everyone due to double worker households, and one of the reasons it gained traction to the current capitalist system is that it was economically advantageous. Thanks for actually reading, rather than respond with derogatory comments directed at my person. I hope your comments confirmed to Plansix that he is dimwitted. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5807 Posts
Care to explain how PiS is far-right? @BigJ Which left? AFAIK, the Spring of Nations was a leftist idea. | ||
|
RolleMcKnolle
Germany1054 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On January 11 2019 17:30 maybenexttime wrote: @BigJ Which left? AFAIK, the Spring of Nations was a leftist idea. I assume you are asking about my comment on the inexistance on the findamental difference between left and right, the state as a social construct and the inexistance of nations? I personally view it as the fundamental trait of "leftism" to be about individualist freedom and nothing else. Everything beyond that - states, capitalism, socialism, private property, collective property - may or may not be a social institution to reach for that goal. But they are only means to an end, which is individual freedom. (that argument goes for Mises, Hayek, Friedmann, and Marx, Prodhoun, George alike, so both leftist movements. Those that call themselves liberals, as well as those that call themselves socialists.) 1. Just like any other revolutionary movement the spring of nations was not a uniform movement. In Austria it is mostly viewed as a bourgoise movement against the monarchy for more civil rights, like freedom of the press. Modern conservative parties and media (e.g. "Die Presse") often use the narrative for their purposes. 2. The technical implementations of the nation state were a huge step forward for leftists. It gave a lot of people - those defined as belonging to "the nation" - many more rights to protect them against the rulership of the monarchs, noblemen, churches and their conservative chancellors. Aka, it made them citizens. Social and political acceptance of broad parts of the population was a step forward from feudal societies. Which eventually led to national democracy of male citizens. Which was eventually overcome by national democracy of male and female citizens. Which may eventually be overcome by federal, internationalist democracies since the social reality of economics, long-distance movement and information spread creates the necessity for international politics. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
On January 11 2019 19:10 RolleMcKnolle wrote: 'cause you can find it in google I also feel abmhm is getting misrepresented here. The part about feminism isn't really as bad as people make it out to be. What i find to be way worse, and I am shocked noone has called this out yet, are the rampant conspiracy theories and anti-semitimsm eg. Rockefeller eugenics. This is way more obvious to be crap but everyone either ignores it or seems to be fine about it. Or how about the part that Hitler was kinda right about the jews, but not everyday jews just the bad ones from Britain? The American eugenics movement received extensive funding from various corporate foundations including the Carnegie Institution, Rockefeller Foundation, and the Harriman railroad fortune.[7] In 1906 J.H. Kellogg provided funding to help found the Race Betterment Foundation in Battle Creek, Michigan.[11] The Eugenics Record Office (ERO) was founded in Cold Spring Harbor, New York in 1911 by the renowned biologist Charles B. Davenport, using money from both the Harriman railroad fortune and the Carnegie Institution. As late as the 1920s, the ERO was one of the leading organizations in the American eugenics movement. ...The Rockefeller Foundation helped develop and fund various German eugenics programs,[98] including the one that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz.[7] you could maybe object with the format presented in but it's in line with his other phrasings.Upon returning from Germany in 1934, where more than 5,000 people per month were being forcibly sterilized, the California eugenics leader C. M. Goethe bragged to a colleague: You will be interested to know that your work has played a powerful part in shaping the opinions of the group of intellectuals who are behind Hitler in this epoch-making program. Everywhere I sensed that their opinions have been tremendously stimulated by American thought ... I want you, my dear friend, to carry this thought with you for the rest of your life, that you have really jolted into action a great government of 60 million people. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18284 Posts
On January 11 2019 20:01 Big J wrote: I assume you are asking about my comment on the inexistance on the findamental difference between left and right, the state as a social construct and the inexistance of nations? I personally view it as the fundamental trait of "leftism" to be about individualist freedom and nothing else. Everything beyond that - states, capitalism, socialism, private property, collective property - may or may not be a social institution to reach for that goal. But they are only means to an end, which is individual freedom. (that argument goes for Mises, Hayek, Friedmann, and Marx, Prodhoun, George alike, so both leftist movements. Those that call themselves liberals, as well as those that call themselves socialists.) 1. Just like any other revolutionary movement the spring of nations was not a uniform movement. In Austria it is mostly viewed as a bourgoise movement against the monarchy for more civil rights, like freedom of the press. Modern conservative parties and media (e.g. "Die Presse") often use the narrative for their purposes. 2. The technical implementations of the nation state were a huge step forward for leftists. It gave a lot of people - those defined as belonging to "the nation" - many more rights to protect them against the rulership of the monarchs, noblemen, churches and their conservative chancellors. Aka, it made them citizens. Social and political acceptance of broad parts of the population was a step forward from feudal societies. Which eventually led to national democracy of male citizens. Which was eventually overcome by national democracy of male and female citizens. Which may eventually be overcome by federal, internationalist democracies since the social reality of economics, long-distance movement and information spread creates the necessity for international politics. But Randian libertarians also claim they are all about individual freedom and nothing else. They want as small a state as possible (some go so far as to say it should be abolished entirely, in favour of voluntary community organizations that grow from individual needs, as if government is somehow different from that). So if you argue individual freedom is the greatest good, you are very much aligned with those aspects of the (far) right. They just disagree on what "individual freedom" means. So while the rest of your post goes on about the progressive implementation of those individual freedoms, your starting point is very similar to that of right-wing libertarians. Especially of interest is that you reference Ludwig von Mises as an inspiration: he is an inspiration for libertarians too. Note that I do not believe in the horseshoe of political ideologies, but if you don't either, it doesn't help your point to use Austrian school economics and "individual freedoms" as your starting point. You're better off grounding your progressive philosophy in humanism, which generally appears to be far more aligned with what you actually argue in favour of, although it gives no real pointers as to how the economy should be organized to further humanist goals. But I think you'll find that there is no real way of reconciling far right ideas with humanism. Back to the discussion about ablmndnh(?)'s post. I understand his point about feminism, I just don't see why it is relevant at all. I do not see how it is relevant to the fight for fair wages for everybody to point out that women have the right to work? Yes? So? And even if we concede that feminism somehow "contributed" to lower birthrates, I don't really care. Lower birthrates are a good thing, so go feminists. Also, I think you might be mixing correlation and causality with what contributed to what. I suspect both the idea of equal rights for women in society, and the idea that women don't exist just to have babies (something religions really like to push) have an origin elsewhere (in the philosophies of the enlightenment), and neither caused the other. But that aside: it's *irrelevant* for the argument about fair pay. He pokes at it in a rambling point about conspiracies by evil bankers exploiting women to keep wages down. It has nothing to do with women or their rights at all, and trying to tie feminism in as an idea promoted by evil bankers is delusional. And thus it is for most of his points. He misrepresents "leftist" politicians as someone who would be against immigration because of brain drain being bad. While I wholeheartedly agree brain drain is bad, the "leftist" solution isn't to forbid migration, it is to try to improve conditions in the source countries. Being born in Zambia should not preclude you from moving to Europe for a better life. What should (ideally) stop you from that is that your basic situation in Zambia is just as good as your basic situation in Sweden (perhaps even better, because Sweden has a horrific climate). What you'd gain from moving to Sweden is the opportunity to work at Swedish companies/institutions, which do *different* things from Zambian companies/institutions, but not better. Is that a pipe dream? Perhaps, but forbidding immigration to prevent brain drain seems like a non sequitur from a progressive ideological starting point. In fact, it sounds like something a right-wing politician would invent to attempt to appeal to a new group of voters. Should I continue deconstructing ablmh's non-sequiturs? His posts are full of them. | ||
|
abmhm
21 Posts
On January 11 2019 19:10 RolleMcKnolle wrote: I also feel abmhm is getting misrepresented here. The part about feminism isn't really as bad as people make it out to be. What i find to be way worse, and I am shocked noone has called this out yet, are the rampant conspiracy theories and anti-semitimsm eg. Rockefeller eugenics. This is way more obvious to be crap but everyone either ignores it or seems to be fine about it. Or how about the part that Hitler was kinda right about the jews, but not everyday jews just the bad ones from Britain? There is nothing "conspiratorial" about the Rockefellers spreading eugenics in Germany. I'm generalizing my statements a little much at times, perhaps, and including some names where they don't belong. I was trying to make a point from a certain perspective related to the 'far-right' and the fact that people noted there was 'anti-semitism' amongst the protesters in France. Prominent Nazis such as Joseph Mengele performed research funded by Rockefeller Foundation. The Rockefeller Foundation helped found the German eugenics program and even funded the program that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz. Much of the spiritual guidance and political agitation for the American eugenics movement came from California's quasi-autonomous eugenic societies, such as Pasadena's Human Betterment Foundation and the California branch of the American Eugenics Society, which coordinated much of their activity with the Eugenics Research Society in Long Island. These organizations -- which functioned as part of a closely-knit network -- published racist eugenic newsletters and pseudoscientific journals, such as Eugenical News and Eugenics, and propagandized for the Nazis. Before that, in the lead up to WW1, the British Rothschilds were aligned with the Anglo-Saxon supremacist Milner Group (Rhodesians who wanted to rebuild the British world order and needed the Americans to do so) against the German Kaiser. They worked towards the goal of sanctioning Germany, leading to poverty and so forth and eventually the war as started by Germany after the assassination. I don't know if they were involved in the killing of the Duke. But they then did help drag the Americans into the war in order to defeat the Germans which led to the Treaty of Versailles which resulted in the outrage amongst the German people in the years following the war. As I said, though, this does not justify violence against ordinary Jews or British citizens (or violence against anyone at any given moment, really), but it makes it understandable if people at the time bought into the political rhetoric against some of those groups. And, as I went on in the list that I gave, there is a difference between 'politically fighting the white supremacist patriarchy' versus 'industrially gassing working-class white men'. I still find it understandable that people want to fight the 'white supremacist patriarchy' even though I am a white male and have no power whatsoever. It's the same with the hate for Muslims - the media constantly broadcasts about 'Islamic terrorism', domestic and abroad. So it is somewhat understandable that a meek and feebleminded populace buys into anti-Muslim rhetoric spewed by politicians. But yeah, I am also shocked no one has 'called me out' for that. Heh. | ||
|
RolleMcKnolle
Germany1054 Posts
On January 11 2019 20:03 xM(Z wrote: 'cause you can find it in google ... you could maybe object with the format presented in but it's in line with his other phrasings. Okay I am sorry, I should have been more clear. The way his writings are phrased are clearly anti-semitic. With my example I was referring to phrasing like In the early 20th century, it was the American Rockefellers - friends of the British Rothschilds - who financed the popularization of the idea of eugenics to Germany. Yes the Rockefeller Foundation was a part of financing the people behind eugenics, a fact not known to me beforehand. But why single them out? Why not also call out the Carnegie Institution or Harriman fortune? Why even conjure up the "British Rothschilds", despite not talking about them at all before, and them having nothing to do with the program? This is pretty obvious anti-semitic phrasing. And you conveniently left out the part about Hitler. Such as what Hitler did. For the Germans in the 30s, it was the elites amongst the Anglo-Saxon Jews who were in charge of Britain that put down Germany again and again, from sanctioning them into poverty and starvation and casting the Kaiser as a warmonger even before WW1, to the Treaty of Versailles afterwards. And Hitler, as a German elite, exploited that reality to enable his campaign against the ordinary Jews at home - whilst the elites who had money and connections all fled or stayed out of harm's way. On January 11 2019 21:20 abmhm wrote: There is nothing "conspiratorial" about the Rockefellers spreading eugenics in Germany. I'm generalizing my statements a little much at times, perhaps, and including some names where they don't belong. I was trying to make a point from a certain perspective related to the 'far-right' and the fact that people noted there was 'anti-semitism' amongst the protesters in France. Prominent Nazis such as Joseph Mengele performed research funded by Rockefeller Foundation. see above The Rockefeller Foundation helped found the German eugenics program and even funded the program that Josef Before that, in the lead up to WW1, the British Rothschilds were aligned with the Anglo-Saxon supremacist Milner Group (Rhodesians who wanted to rebuild the British world order and needed the Americans to do so) against the German Kaiser. They worked towards the goal of sanctioning Germany, leading to poverty and so forth and eventually the war as started by Germany after the assassination. I don't know if they were involved in the killing of the Duke. But they then did help drag the Americans into the war in order to defeat the Germans which led to the Treaty of Versailles which resulted in the outrage amongst the German people in the years following the war. So? Rothschilds were members of a group in Britain working against German interests? So what? There were lots of other people in different countries with different backgrounds doing just that? But why point out the Rothschilds? The way you are phrasing everything makes it sound like there are big (especially) Jewish conspiracies. Which is a common Anti-semitic trope unfortunately. "I don't know whether they were behind the killing of the Duke". So why bring it up? Why bring in a hint for some big conspiracy in the back when there is simply no reason to depite pushing the idea there might be a conspiracy. As I said, though, this does not justify violence against ordinary Jews or British citizens (or violence against anyone at any given moment, really), but it makes it understandable if people at the time bought into the political rhetoric against some of those groups. And, as I went on in the list that I gave, there is a difference between 'politically fighting the white supremacist patriarchy' versus 'industrially gassing working-class white men'. I still find it understandable that people want to fight the 'white supremacist patriarchy' even though I am a white male and have no power whatsoever. It's the same with the hate for Muslims - the media constantly broadcasts about 'Islamic terrorism', domestic and abroad. So it is somewhat understandable that a meek and feebleminded populace buys into anti-Muslim rhetoric spewed by politicians. But yeah, I am also shocked no one has 'called me out' for that. Heh. I really don't have big problems with you talk about power structure and different mechanisms in society to keep powerful poeple powerful. But all this anti-semitic conspiracy crap makes u rather hard to take serious. People believing lies is somewhat understandable. So what? Do u want to say that all you are doing is "I am just telling you how people might have seen it back then so you understand their viewpoint?"? If so, you really should be clearer about that. | ||
|
abmhm
21 Posts
On January 11 2019 21:02 Acrofales wrote: And thus it is for most of his points. He misrepresents "leftist" politicians as someone who would be against immigration because of brain drain being bad. While I wholeheartedly agree brain drain is bad, the "leftist" solution isn't to forbid migration, it is to try to improve conditions in the source countries. Being born in Zambia should not preclude you from moving to Europe for a better life. What should (ideally) stop you from that is that your basic situation in Zambia is just as good as your basic situation in Sweden (perhaps even better, because Sweden has a horrific climate). What you'd gain from moving to Sweden is the opportunity to work at Swedish companies/institutions, which do *different* things from Zambian companies/institutions, but not better. Is that a pipe dream? Perhaps, but forbidding immigration to prevent brain drain seems like a non sequitur from a progressive ideological starting point. In fact, it sounds like something a right-wing politician would invent to attempt to appeal to a new group of voters. I am not trying to represent leftist politicians as being against immigration. I am trying to find a way for leftist politicians to be able to use anti-immigration rhetoric as a way to get anti-immigration right-wingers to vote for them, rather than the people who would rather revert society. Same sort of thing with my points regarding feminism. I don't understand why nobody seems to comprehend this. From my first post, where I opened with that very sentiment: I love the coalition between the "far-left" and the "far-right" against neoliberal centrism that we're seeing in France. This is how it should be: the poor aligned together, rather than the neoliberal elites pretending that they're for "social justice" or some shit while they enable corporations to pillage foreign countries. Want to cut immigration? You need the anti-globalist far-left, who oppose exploitation in Africa and South America that drives educated people out of those countries. You also need to stop climate change which is becoming a factor in driving migration, so once again the far-left is necessary to achieve this. Then I followed it up in later posts with the notion about brain drain (ammo for leftist politicians to use rhetoric against immigration), and made connections between immigration, feminism and birthrates - some of the major far-right complaints about Western society. The far-right won't give two shits about building up foreign countries, although I have some ideas about that too (drop patent laws, open up information freely - especially with regards to companies like Monsanto-Bayern). But you can SAY, with legitimacy, that stopping immigration will help build up those countries. And once you say "stop immigration", then the right-winger will perk up and listen to the leftist politician. | ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5807 Posts
On January 11 2019 20:01 Big J wrote: I assume you are asking about my comment on the inexistance on the findamental difference between left and right, the state as a social construct and the inexistance of nations? I personally view it as the fundamental trait of "leftism" to be about individualist freedom and nothing else. Everything beyond that - states, capitalism, socialism, private property, collective property - may or may not be a social institution to reach for that goal. But they are only means to an end, which is individual freedom. (that argument goes for Mises, Hayek, Friedmann, and Marx, Prodhoun, George alike, so both leftist movements. Those that call themselves liberals, as well as those that call themselves socialists.) 1. Just like any other revolutionary movement the spring of nations was not a uniform movement. In Austria it is mostly viewed as a bourgoise movement against the monarchy for more civil rights, like freedom of the press. Modern conservative parties and media (e.g. "Die Presse") often use the narrative for their purposes. 2. The technical implementations of the nation state were a huge step forward for leftists. It gave a lot of people - those defined as belonging to "the nation" - many more rights to protect them against the rulership of the monarchs, noblemen, churches and their conservative chancellors. Aka, it made them citizens. Social and political acceptance of broad parts of the population was a step forward from feudal societies. Which eventually led to national democracy of male citizens. Which was eventually overcome by national democracy of male and female citizens. Which may eventually be overcome by federal, internationalist democracies since the social reality of economics, long-distance movement and information spread creates the necessity for international politics. I just struggle to understand why you use the label, considering that for the entirety of its existence the left has been championing various collectivist causes: self-determination of peoples/nations, class struggle, emancipation of minorities, etc. You could argue that individualist freedom is a major tenet in a subset of what constitutes the left, but to claim that it is what defines leftism is to me hijacking of the term. @Acrofales How do you imagine the situation in Zambia will ever improve is the West poaches Zambia's most capable people? | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On the otherhand, in terms of individual rights, if a person of Zambian origin is talented enough to be headhunted into the UK, what moral system will deny him that opportunity in the name of the artificial construct that is a nation? Also I have no idea what feminism got to do with smaller family sizes. For instance in Korea and Japan, which are countries where machoism and masculinity reigns supreme and never even heard of feminism, birthrates are lower than any other countries. It is simply a cost of economic prosperity and the cost of providing competition. I don't see how segregating the economic rights of the sexes would magically produce lower living costs, and I certainly don't see it as preferable in any case. | ||
|
abmhm
21 Posts
On January 11 2019 21:48 Dangermousecatdog wrote: The question I would ask is why should I care about Zambia? If UK poaches all the top talent of Zambia, why would I care, especially in the context of solely caring about your own nation. On the otherhand, in terms of individual rights, if a person of Zambian origin is talented enough to be headhunted into the UK, what moral system will deny him that opportunity in the name of the artificial construct that is a nation? The moral system of caring about your family, your neighbors, your culture, and society that you grew up in. It is a difficult concept for many people these days, but conservative right-wingers might understand. | ||
| ||
